U.S.

HOUSTON -- "Affluenza," the
term used by a psychologist to argue that a North Texas
teenager from a wealthy family should not be sent to prison for killing four pedestrians while driving drunk, is not a recognized diagnosis and should not
be used to justify bad behavior, psychologists said Thursday.

The term was popularized in the late
1990s by Jessie O'Neill, the granddaughter of a past president of General
Motors, when she wrote the book "The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of
Affluence."

It has since been used to describe a condition in which
children - generally from richer families - have a sense of entitlement, are
irresponsible, make excuses for poor behavior, and sometimes dabble in drugs
and alcohol, explained Dr. Gary Buffone, a Jacksonville, Fla., psychologist who
does family wealth advising.

It was also used by an expert defense
witness in the trial of the 16-year-old teenage driver, who after confessing to
intoxication manslaughter in the fatal
accident avoided what could have been a sentence
of up to 20 years in prison when District Judge Jean Boyd gave him 10 years of
probation.

"Essentially what he has done is
slapped this child on the wrist for what is obviously a very serious offense
which he would be responsible for in any other situation," Buffone said.
"The defense is laughable, the disposition is horrifying ... not only
haven't the parents set any consequences, but it's being reinforced by the
judge's actions."

While prosecutors argued for the
maximum prison sentence for the June
15 accident, his attorneys said the boy needs rehabilitation, not prison, the
Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. Psychologist Gary Miller testified that
the boy grew up in a house where the parents were preoccupied with arguments that
led to a divorce and that he suffered from "affluenza."

But Buffone said in a telephone
interview Thursday that the term wasn't meant to be used as a defense in a
criminal trial or to justify such behavior.

"The simple term would be spoiled
brat," he said.

Miller told the judge that the boy's
father "does not have relationships, he takes hostages." He said
the boy's mother was indulgent: "Her mantra was that if it feels good, do
it."

Prosecutor Richard Alpert argued in
court that if the boy continues to be cushioned by his family's wealth, another
tragedy is inevitable.

Although the boy's case was handled in
juvenile court, he has been identified publicly by the Tarrant County Sheriff's
Office.

Dr Suniya Luthar, a psychologist who
specializes in the costs of affluence in suburban communities, told The
Associated Press that her research at Columbia University in New York has shown
that 20 percent of upper middle-class adolescents believe their parents would
help them get out of a sticky situation at school, such as being caught for the
third time on campus with a bottle of vodka. The judge's sentence reinforces that belief.

"What is the likelihood if this
was an African-American, inner-city kid that grew up in a violent neighborhood
to a single mother who is addicted to crack and he was caught two or three
times ... what is the likelihood that the judge would excuse his behavior and
let him off because of how he was raised?" Luthar asked.

"We are setting a double standard
for the rich and poor," she added, noting the message is "families
that have money, you can drink and drive. This is a very, very dangerous thing
we're telling our children."

Authorities said the teen and friends
were seen on surveillance video stealing two cases of beer from a store. He had
seven passengers in his Ford F-350, was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level
three times the legal limit, according to trial testimony. His truck slammed
into the four pedestrians, killing Brian Jennings, 43, Breanna Mitchell, 24,
Shelby Boyles, 21, and her mother, Hollie Boyles, 52.

The judge decided the programs available
in the Texas juvenile justice system
may not provide the intensive therapy the teen could receive at a
$450,000-a-year rehabilitation center near Newport Beach, Calif., that the
parents would pay for.

Scott Brown, the boy's lead defense
attorney, said he could have been freed after two years if he had drawn the
20-year sentence. Instead, the judge
"fashioned a sentence that could
have him under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years," he told
the Star-Telegram.